Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
Nothing more disappointing to me than seeing a game I might enjoy... and then it's only available on PC on Epic Games store. Why can't it be available on Epic, Xbox game store and Steam? It's so annoying, like you have no choice but to use Epic... which I would literally do ANYTHING not to use.
So they still got your money eventually. That's a double win, in their eyes.
If I like the game then good for them. Epic didn't get any of my money and they're the one I have an issue with.
They lose day 1 hype, tho. Sure, the game eventually comes to steam, but that's after it's already been overplayed on twitch and YouTube'd to death.
In what way does that matter outside of driving sales? Which people like op happily still gave them?
It's not "new". There is no FOMO. Early adopters for games are a large chunk of sales.
If that was actually a concern, why would companies do it at all?
Why do companies do exclusive launches? Presumably they think the money they get from Epic is more than the money they'll lose in sales. Whether or not they're right is another question.
Basicaly they do not think their game is any good. So if someone takes the deal. I instantly loose interest. I mean if even the developer think it is no fun...
Congrats on getting the point.
The commenter above you said that it's a gamble as to whether a developer making their game exclusive to a certain platform and the payout from doing so is more lucrative compared to releasing to all platforms. It may be, or it may not be.
I'm not sure if we have the statistics of how well Anno 1800 did in terms of sales when it first launched, but the parent commenter said they obtained the game on Steam when it was discounted. That said commenter didn't pay full price for it at launch to me speaks to how maybe Anno 1800 lost revenue by not reaching more audiences.
Point is: we don't know if it was a double win for Anno 1800, or any game by any developer that is restricted to a limited amount of platforms. Don't claim it was so unless you have evidence one way or another.
Congrats on being a dick for no reason
Not my intention on your comment. More so commenting everyone else's reaction to my comments pointing to the same thing.
Maybe next time try actually making your point instead of circling around it for five comments like a fifth rate Socrates.
Congrats on all the downvotes sunshine
You care about downvotes?
They indicate how much of an ass you come across as.
There are tons of people in this world who are right, yet everyone dislikes and doesn't interact with. Something to think about some day, when you calm down.
I mean most people would look at it as an indication that their point isn't landing. You can just power through and be a jerk though.
Good indication of how out of touch or plain posting in the wrong instance
In what way is that a "double win"?
In what way is it not? They get Epic's money for exclusivity and know they'll still get sales after it ends from people that "boycott" them for doing that.
Buying the game later doesn't hurt them, it just reinforces the same behavior later.
Getting Epic's money isn't a slam dunk for profit. You're hedging your bets taking guaranteed Epic money for lower potential sales vs non-guaranteed Steam money for higher potential sales. Having a bad exclusivity deal on Epic and then selling your game at a loss (90% discount) on steam isn't profiting both ways, and sometimes isn't profiting either way.
I also disagree with the sentiment that you're reinforcing bad behavior. If anything, you're signalling to them that you won't support exclusivity deals, and are happy to wait for a deep discount on Steam. Ultimately, that's a win for consumers.
That said, fuck exclusivity deals, and I'm much in the same boat where I'm hard pressed to support developers that take them.
Unless they're actively losing money in their deal, they're not gonna care if the sale comes immediately or years later. If Epic exclusive + late "hold outs" = $$$, they're just gonna do that until the equation changes.
Economists cannot predict the future, as much as some people might wish they could.
Whatever break even point the devs of Anno 1800 considered when making the decision between releasing only on Epic and releasing to all platforms may have seemed reasonable at the time the devs were gearing up to release the game, but performance of said game is never guaranteed. Sure you may have statistics to influence things one way or another, but it's still a gamble.
We don't know if Epic exclusive + late discounts > full game purchases on all platforms specifically for Anno 1800, and it appears that you're claiming which way that equation points with no evidence. Do you work for Epic? For Ubisoft? For Blue Byte? Are there public sources pointing to game sales? What research are you pulling from that considers game futures?
I will respect that you're right about predicting devs' decisions based on which way that equation points. Everyone is downvoting you though because you're making it seem like you know the answer when clearly there's more to this game, and financial gaming decisions like this.
You're not an expert. You're a chatter. Unless you can prove otherwise.
It's less money in their pockets and more money in ours. That's not going to be a double win in their books.
Nobody ever hurt a company or made them reconsider their decisions by giving them money, no matter how little it was.
Companies definitely do not like waiting for money.
That's not what a boycott is. If I don't buy a game because it's exclusively on Epic, it's not because I'm taking a moral stance. It's because it's invisible to me.
A boycott is when I don't play Epic/EA/Unisoft/Blizzard-Activism games for the company's historic shitty behavior.
I'm aware of what an actual boycott is.
It would be except I forgot it existed while it was in purgatory on Epic
When I see sales of Playstation games on PC the numbers are very underwhelming compared to other big third party titles. In contrast helldivers 2 got insane numbers when it launched simultaneously.
I don't think launch hype sales can be overlooked and how much may potentially be lost. If people are willing to wait then by the time game is available hype is less and it's more likely for people to move on or wait for even steeper sales.
I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me about it. I'm not the one deciding to sell out to Epic.
You need a better definition of „they“. Because I don’t buy from Epic for one particular reason, so they (Epic) don’t get my money. If the game is good and I want to play it I will do so later and at that point the developer still deserves my money.
if it was discounted then they didn't get as much money.
And? It's still profit. If it weren't, it wouldn't be listed.
and... instead of getting $60 immediately, they are getting $30 or whatever later. clearly one is better than the other, no?
Profit matters on a quarterly basis.
If a company gets the full profit of their game as they predicted they might in 1 quarter, then that's basically the best case scenario.
If instead that full profit is spread of multiple years, then quater-to-quarter the game might look like it is underperforming, or severely so.
The timing of profit matters just as much as how much profit there is. Time value of money is a pretty useful concept in the financial world.